4 ms·

16- and 17-year-olds can work and allows them to serve alcohol Teens don't really have smaller hands than adults. This bill is sane. Allowing kids to work for

16- and 17-year-olds can work and allows them to serve alcohol Teens don't really have smaller hands than adults. This bill is sane. Allowing kids to work for construction is going to improve lives more than blindly pushing everyone regardless of desire or aptitude in college and graduating them with a worthless degree and a half mil in debt. Let teens work in roofing and get some skills that the world actually needs. Give me a rational argument please, not just an appeal to emotion.

eganist 3y ago
16 and 17 year olds have even less of a risk assessment capacity than 18 year olds (worth noting that this faculty fully matures by around 25), but jobs where bad decisions have more impact aren't the place for people new to the workforce to cut their teeth; there's too much risk not just to themselves (which we're disregarding here; people should be fine making whatever stupid decision they want) but to the people around them. Start them off doing jobs that have responsibility but less consequence. Then progressively ramp up the responsibility and accountability as they grasp it. That's your rational argument.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > which we're disregarding here; people should be fine making whatever stupid decision they want The entire reason the concept of “minors” exists is a social judgement that this rule has only limited applicability to people below a certain age.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    A country that allows kids to climb on roofs five years before they're considered mature enough to drink alcohol needs to have another look at how it does risk assessment.
    - dariusj18 3y ago
      Well they certainly shouldn't be climbing on roofs drunk.
    - WillPostForFood 3y ago
      The bill bans children from working on roofs, it just allows them to work for roofing capacities.
toomuchtodo 3y ago
I do not believe any rational argument will appease. Risk can be objectively measured but people vote their feelings. This bill is being used to avoid raising wages to draw adult labor into the state's marketplace for manufacturing, agriculture, and other objectively higher risk industries. These young workers will be harmed, and they will have no recourse (as typically happens in America).
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  > Risk can be objectively measured but people vote their feelings Having done cybersecurtity at a few F500s, I can tell you that risk is often just as "feelings" based as anything else. In most cases risk is a WAG based on whatever model you feel like flogging this week.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
DubiousPusher 3y ago
Here's a rational argument. Roofing in particular is one of the most dangerous, demanding and environmentally harsh trades in the construction industry. Just as there is an age below which most children's bodies are not ready to begin heavy weight lifting, there is an age below which most children's bodies are not prepared to handle roofing.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  The bill blocks all children from working on roofs, it just allows 17 and 18 year olds to work for roofing companies in other capacities. Prior to this amendment, roofing companies could do no hiring in any capacity. Does the bill seem more reasonable now?
  - candiodari 3y ago
    As soon as you realize this will "allow" many parents to force their children to work at 14 years old, no it doesn't seem reasonable.
  - DubiousPusher 3y ago
    That aspect does. Yes.
  - nirvdrum 3y ago
    Odds are really good that they'll be pressured to work on roofs and the employer will say "Well, they volunteered. I don't how old they are. Am I supposed to card all my employees?"
bryanrasmussen 3y ago
Since teens are not necessarily fully developed mentally etc. will there be a way to categorize different construction businesses to keep the more dangerous types of work from being open to people who might not think things through. Just thinking about the places I've worked where people died from dumb decisions, but that's probably overly emotional.
zamalek 3y ago
> parent has granted permission for the work The bill itself touches lightly on the problem: parents. One massive example of a potential problem: does the bill protect education at all? The kids learning skills that can make them money is really a fringe benefit when you consider how much money their parents can make. Win, win, for all!
- WillPost4food 3y ago
  does the bill protect education at all? Of course it does. The vilification of the bill entirely based on the worse case assumptions is really unfortunate. --- No person under fourteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation in any work activity. No person under sixteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation in any work activity during regular school hours, except the following work activities: 1. Those persons legally out of school, if such status is verified by the submission of written proof to the director. 2. Those persons working in a supervised school-work program. 3. Those persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen enrolled in school on a part-time basis and who are required to work as a part of their school training. --- Knowing that there are educational protections, does that make you feel better about the bill?
x86_64Ubuntu 3y ago
You probably don't want to use roofing as an example, it's one of the most dangerous jobs out there. I think not wanting to build an economy on piles of shattered 16-17 year old bodies.
mindslight 3y ago
The "allowing" someone to work is not a problem, when that choice is made in a free and voluntary manner. Rather the fundamental problem is the economic feedback loop that gradually turns "allowed" into "required". Women entering the workforce was most certainly an advancement for freedom and equality. But as the labor and economic laws weren't adjusted to compensate, it did have the effect of making the standard of full time household employment jump from 40 hours a week to 80. Also there is a huge difference between a kid working with their family providing age-appropriate supervision (which can be done under the table regardless of this bill), and being left to the care of a stranger that's just following economic incentives. I could use most woodworking tools by age 12 under loose supervision, but that doesn't mean it would have been appropriate for me to work in a furniture shop. And I don't know if you could have picked a worse example than roofing. There's just a basic level of competence one needs to maintain on heights and slopes. And it's basically a recipe for chest-thumping foremen rejecting fall protection and shaming the underlings into doing the same. At least silicosis doesn't show up for decades, unlike a fall from height.
xracy 3y ago
I mean, I would argue you're not making a rational argument here. > Allowing kids to work for construction is going to improve lives more than blindly pushing everyone regardless of desire or aptitude in college and graduating them with a worthless degree and a half mil in debt. That's pretty vivid imagery for someone who doesn't want an appeal to emotion. It even has "won't someone think of the children" vibes. The arguments against this are that we've litigated it in the 1920s and discovered that child labor = exploited labor. Children have less volition than adults and so we're putting them into a vulnerable position by including them in an adversarial relationship of negotiating for pay/work. I'm not saying kids have to go to college to make a living (at the moment that seems clearly unnecessary). But why shouldn't kids go to a trade school to learn in a safer environment, instead of being at risk in on-the-job learning in dangerous environments? Also there are other pieces of school that are more fundamental to day-to-day life than college. I learned a significant portion of my communication skills in high school. Are you okay with kids missing out on high school in order to take a job? That feels like it is likely to severely limit their ability to get other work later in life if they should ever lose that one skill they learned. "Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one." The whole point of school is to get a broad base of skills that you can apply to multiple situations. Any work kids would do in their formative years has the potential to undermine this by competing for their time.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  A lot of 14-17 year olds would find what you are saying about them very patronizing. It’s like you expect them to go from kids to adults the night the minute 18? I learned how to use a band saw in shop class when I was in 8th grade. Now we don’t even let kids ride the bus alone until they turn 18. Not all kids are challenged by high school. I was working full time my junior and senior years while taking physics 1 and 2 as well as pre calc and calculus. Really, it didn’t have much to offer me, I would have been really bored if not allowed to work. It’s weird because I had to cut back after 18, turns out college isn’t as easy as high school even though there is a lot less class time.

eganist 3y ago

16 and 17 year olds have even less of a risk assessment capacity than 18 year olds (worth noting that this faculty fully matures by around 25), but jobs where bad decisions have more impact aren't the place for people new to the workforce to cut their teeth; there's too much risk not just to themselves (which we're disregarding here; people should be fine making whatever stupid decision they want) but to the people around them. Start them off doing jobs that have responsibility but less consequence. Then progressively ramp up the responsibility and accountability as they grasp it. That's your rational argument.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> which we're disregarding here; people should be fine making whatever stupid decision they want The entire reason the concept of “minors” exists is a social judgement that this rule has only limited applicability to people below a certain age.
- pjc50 3y ago
  A country that allows kids to climb on roofs five years before they're considered mature enough to drink alcohol needs to have another look at how it does risk assessment.
  - dariusj18 3y ago
    Well they certainly shouldn't be climbing on roofs drunk.
  - WillPostForFood 3y ago
    The bill bans children from working on roofs, it just allows them to work for roofing capacities.

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I do not believe any rational argument will appease. Risk can be objectively measured but people vote their feelings. This bill is being used to avoid raising wages to draw adult labor into the state's marketplace for manufacturing, agriculture, and other objectively higher risk industries. These young workers will be harmed, and they will have no recourse (as typically happens in America).

red-iron-pine 3y ago
> Risk can be objectively measured but people vote their feelings Having done cybersecurtity at a few F500s, I can tell you that risk is often just as "feelings" based as anything else. In most cases risk is a WAG based on whatever model you feel like flogging this week.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

DubiousPusher 3y ago

Here's a rational argument. Roofing in particular is one of the most dangerous, demanding and environmentally harsh trades in the construction industry. Just as there is an age below which most children's bodies are not ready to begin heavy weight lifting, there is an age below which most children's bodies are not prepared to handle roofing.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
The bill blocks all children from working on roofs, it just allows 17 and 18 year olds to work for roofing companies in other capacities. Prior to this amendment, roofing companies could do no hiring in any capacity. Does the bill seem more reasonable now?
- candiodari 3y ago
  As soon as you realize this will "allow" many parents to force their children to work at 14 years old, no it doesn't seem reasonable.
- DubiousPusher 3y ago
  That aspect does. Yes.
- nirvdrum 3y ago
  Odds are really good that they'll be pressured to work on roofs and the employer will say "Well, they volunteered. I don't how old they are. Am I supposed to card all my employees?"

bryanrasmussen 3y ago

Since teens are not necessarily fully developed mentally etc. will there be a way to categorize different construction businesses to keep the more dangerous types of work from being open to people who might not think things through. Just thinking about the places I've worked where people died from dumb decisions, but that's probably overly emotional.

zamalek 3y ago

> parent has granted permission for the work The bill itself touches lightly on the problem: parents. One massive example of a potential problem: does the bill protect education at all? The kids learning skills that can make them money is really a fringe benefit when you consider how much money their parents can make. Win, win, for all!

WillPost4food 3y ago
does the bill protect education at all? Of course it does. The vilification of the bill entirely based on the worse case assumptions is really unfortunate. --- No person under fourteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation in any work activity. No person under sixteen years of age shall be employed or permitted to work with or without compensation in any work activity during regular school hours, except the following work activities: 1. Those persons legally out of school, if such status is verified by the submission of written proof to the director. 2. Those persons working in a supervised school-work program. 3. Those persons between the ages of fourteen and sixteen enrolled in school on a part-time basis and who are required to work as a part of their school training. --- Knowing that there are educational protections, does that make you feel better about the bill?

x86_64Ubuntu 3y ago

You probably don't want to use roofing as an example, it's one of the most dangerous jobs out there. I think not wanting to build an economy on piles of shattered 16-17 year old bodies.

mindslight 3y ago

The "allowing" someone to work is not a problem, when that choice is made in a free and voluntary manner. Rather the fundamental problem is the economic feedback loop that gradually turns "allowed" into "required". Women entering the workforce was most certainly an advancement for freedom and equality. But as the labor and economic laws weren't adjusted to compensate, it did have the effect of making the standard of full time household employment jump from 40 hours a week to 80. Also there is a huge difference between a kid working with their family providing age-appropriate supervision (which can be done under the table regardless of this bill), and being left to the care of a stranger that's just following economic incentives. I could use most woodworking tools by age 12 under loose supervision, but that doesn't mean it would have been appropriate for me to work in a furniture shop. And I don't know if you could have picked a worse example than roofing. There's just a basic level of competence one needs to maintain on heights and slopes. And it's basically a recipe for chest-thumping foremen rejecting fall protection and shaming the underlings into doing the same. At least silicosis doesn't show up for decades, unlike a fall from height.

xracy 3y ago

I mean, I would argue you're not making a rational argument here. > Allowing kids to work for construction is going to improve lives more than blindly pushing everyone regardless of desire or aptitude in college and graduating them with a worthless degree and a half mil in debt. That's pretty vivid imagery for someone who doesn't want an appeal to emotion. It even has "won't someone think of the children" vibes. The arguments against this are that we've litigated it in the 1920s and discovered that child labor = exploited labor. Children have less volition than adults and so we're putting them into a vulnerable position by including them in an adversarial relationship of negotiating for pay/work. I'm not saying kids have to go to college to make a living (at the moment that seems clearly unnecessary). But why shouldn't kids go to a trade school to learn in a safer environment, instead of being at risk in on-the-job learning in dangerous environments? Also there are other pieces of school that are more fundamental to day-to-day life than college. I learned a significant portion of my communication skills in high school. Are you okay with kids missing out on high school in order to take a job? That feels like it is likely to severely limit their ability to get other work later in life if they should ever lose that one skill they learned. "Jack of all trades, master of none, but better than a master of one." The whole point of school is to get a broad base of skills that you can apply to multiple situations. Any work kids would do in their formative years has the potential to undermine this by competing for their time.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
A lot of 14-17 year olds would find what you are saying about them very patronizing. It’s like you expect them to go from kids to adults the night the minute 18? I learned how to use a band saw in shop class when I was in 8th grade. Now we don’t even let kids ride the bus alone until they turn 18. Not all kids are challenged by high school. I was working full time my junior and senior years while taking physics 1 and 2 as well as pre calc and calculus. Really, it didn’t have much to offer me, I would have been really bored if not allowed to work. It’s weird because I had to cut back after 18, turns out college isn’t as easy as high school even though there is a lot less class time.